I am under the impression that the 6ft number came out of the assumption that it only transmits using large droplets, which can move 6ft upon coughing or sneezing.
I think it’s too early to rule out aerosol transmission (small droplets that cover larger distances, ex: Influenza transmission).
This article from CIDRAP does a pretty good job of explaining things around this, and mentions that MERS-CoV does have evidence of aerosol transmission, making it quite plausible.
This preprint mentioned that SARS-CoV-2 (which they called HCoV-19) survived for 3 hours as an aerosol and remained viable.
So the quoted claim may turn out to be inaccurate on this level as well, if perhaps somewhat understandable (given their political constraints and the data they had available).
Note that “survived as an [artificially-generated] aerosol” does not mean that aerosols are generated in substantial numbers in realistic scenarios, nor does it say anything about how infectious the aerosol route is. (Also note that the “3 hour” figure in the preprint’s original abstract was grossly misleading; the preprint has been updated to remove it. The real figure implied by their data is longer.)
For what it’s worth, even if aerosol transmission were proven (which it has not been), I’d still assume that breathing in close contact is higher-risk.
SARS-1 and SARS-2 both seem to spread mostly via close contact and large-droplets.
I am under the impression that the 6ft number came out of the assumption that it only transmits using large droplets, which can move 6ft upon coughing or sneezing.
I think it’s too early to rule out aerosol transmission (small droplets that cover larger distances, ex: Influenza transmission).
This article from CIDRAP does a pretty good job of explaining things around this, and mentions that MERS-CoV does have evidence of aerosol transmission, making it quite plausible.
This preprint mentioned that SARS-CoV-2 (which they called HCoV-19) survived for 3 hours as an aerosol and remained viable.
So the quoted claim may turn out to be inaccurate on this level as well, if perhaps somewhat understandable (given their political constraints and the data they had available).
Note that “survived as an [artificially-generated] aerosol” does not mean that aerosols are generated in substantial numbers in realistic scenarios, nor does it say anything about how infectious the aerosol route is. (Also note that the “3 hour” figure in the preprint’s original abstract was grossly misleading; the preprint has been updated to remove it. The real figure implied by their data is longer.)
Appreciate the added information.
For what it’s worth, even if aerosol transmission were proven (which it has not been), I’d still assume that breathing in close contact is higher-risk.
SARS-1 and SARS-2 both seem to spread mostly via close contact and large-droplets.